So, my question is, which license is more appropriate for something
that is
just open source?

I would suggest limiting your choices to two or three selections.

If you want to cast the broadest possible net, you can use the BSD
license. The BSD license gives the most possible freedom to the
licensee where they will be able to choose how to distribute derived
works.

If you want to provide enduring openness of your code, even if that
means commercial entities might shy away from it (not always the case
these days though) you could consider the Gnu GPL.

Most of it boils down to what you want done with the derived works.

I want to retain my rights to the scripts creative idea
but whish others to maybe see it and say "Oh... so that is how you do
that."

Either of the licenses mentioned above will relinquish much of your
control over the scripts, but still leave you with the copyright so you
will continue to get credited with the original work.

Well, hopefully anyway. I chose "free for non-commercial use" for now
since
I do not really know the various differences between all the choices.
My
guess is that the BSD license fits my needs but I am not so sure. If
someone
were to include my idea-concept-code in another project I would
certainly
desire the nod of recognition if not some payola if it matured into a
commercial product.

None of the popular open source licenses will obligate the licensee to
pay you for using your code. Using a different license with the hopes
that it will give you more control over derived works will likely shoot
your creative works in the foot.

If you're really serious about this, and don't mind spending a little
$$ up front to get the right answer, I suggest giving Don Rosenberg a
call at Stromian Technologies. He's one of the most authoritative
sources on software licensing that you will find, and he is well versed
on the multitude of OSI-approved licenses out there.